Behind the Façades in France: What expats and the mainstream media (French and American alike) fail to notice (or fail to tell you) about French attitudes, principles, values, and official positions…

Tuesday, September 20, 2016

The Four Key Facts that Nobody Tells You About Obama's Birth Certificate Issue

The one certain bet about the Barack Obama birth certificate issue over the past eight years (and counting) is that you do not know the four key issues involved or realize the extent of their importance.

First, a(n unfortunately) necessary disclaimer: Out of over 12,500 posts in the past 12 years, less than 10 on this blog have been about the so-called "Birther" issue (and in a couple of those, it was never even the main subject). That amounts to more than 99.92% of No Pasarán posts that do not treat Obama's birth Certificate in any way. Just so you know that you can hardly accuse (or dismiss) No Pasarán or any one of its webmasters of being associated with alleged nutjobs (at least not with regards to that issue).

Having put that out of the way, let's get started:

1) The "Birther" issue did not rise among Republicans, conservatives, and/or the unruly rubes of flyover country

(aka the bitter clingers to guns and religion; or, if you prefer, aka the basket of deplorable and irredeemable racists, sexists, homophobes, xenophobes, and Islamophobes). It started with the campaign of Hillary Clinton in 2008, involving — you know the tune — the compassionate, intelligent, humanistic, forward-looking fellow members of Obama's (and the Clintons') Democrat Party.

2) Far from being totally racist, twisted, dangerous, and/or simply abnormal, the ideas brought up by the alleged "Birther" issue (whether leveled by a Democrat or a Republican) turn out to be pretty conventional and run-of-the-mill.And, that, on a ho-hum issue of secondary importance (aka a distraction).

May we be allowed to examine this issue — fairly, coolly, and dispassionately?

… Recall that Jesse Jackson tried running for president twice (in 1984 and
1988), and although he did not manage to become the Democratic Party's
candidate, noone suggested that he was born abroad,
and that for the simple reason that the Greenville, SC, native did not
have a foreigner for a father (or for a mother) nor did he spend
numerous years abroad. [Neither did Herman Cain or Ben Carson have to deal with such charges in their respective elections about a quarter century later, be it by Democrats or by the supporters of their GOP competitors.]

… to believe that an American citizen (whatever the color of his skin) born to a foreign father who lived much of his childhood abroad may indeed have been born in a foreign country turns out not to be that far-fetched at all.

Indeed, the difference between the Truthers and the Birthers is that in the first case,
we are being asked to believe that 1) hundreds, if not thousands, of
government officials were approached with a view to conspire to kill
thousands of their fellow citizens, all (or most) of them innocent
civilians, that 2) hundreds, if not thousands, of government officials
agreed (apparently without a moment of hesitation) to conspire to
murder thousands of innocent civilians, and that 3) none of these
hundreds (thousands) of government officials has ever had a single,
even fleeting feeling of remorse, or let the cat out of the bag, say
while having too much to drink (no remorse?) during a Saturday outing
to a local bar.

In the second case, we do not
even have a conspiracy, but basically one single man hypothetically telling a
falsehood — although it might even be termed a lie of omission — a lie
about what offhand is a personal matter, but has turned into the only
thing (allegedly) keeping him from power (Update: The New York Times' Double Standard on Conspiracy Theories).

Most damning of all, when you pause to think of it, the castigators'
proof — if it can be called that — all lies in one fact (beyond the
recently released certificate of live birth): and that fact is that
Obama is a man, a person whose word should never be doubted, who is
capable of no lying, no evil, no chicanery. If he tells you that, say,
he is a Christian, then how dare you deny he is a religious man?! How dare you imply that he is a Muslim?! How dare you state he is a socialist?!

The person who ridicules the "Birther" theory as inane has no more
proof than the born-in-Hawaii skeptic of where Obama was actually born
[or didn't have any more proof until over two years into Obama's presidency]:
his only argument — beyond the contention that the certificate of live
birth and the newspaper clipping are incontrovertible proof that are
not, can not be, fakes, bureaucratic mistakes, or misinterpretations —
is the indisputable "truth" that Obama is someone whose honesty should
not — should never — be questioned. (Whether in regards to his private
life or to his political plans for America's future.)
[Update: As it happens, we
would learn in 2012 (over four years after Obama was first a candidate
and over three years after he entered the White House) that a "New Book Raises Questions About Obama's Memoir" (The New York Times' Michael Shear) and that, indeed, it turns out that Obama's memories were a "fantasy (like most of the President's own memoir)" (The Daily Mail). Adds Toby Harnden: "'Barack Obama: The Story' by David Maraniss catalogues dozens of instances in which Obama deviated significantly from the truth in his book 'Dreams from My Father: A Story of Race and Inheritance'. The 641-page book punctures the carefully-crafted narrative of Obama’s life."]

When you think about it, it might be less worrying that some do not
believe Obama was born in the United States (because of the
circumstances linked to his entire childhood, much of it abroad) than
that some are utterly convinced he must
be born in the United States (because the Chicago pol is allegedly a
sainted figure who can do, who can say no evil, who is incapable of or
of lying or of falsifying documents).
Again, remember the desires of some of his followers who want(ed) the
constitution to be changed, only so Obama could win one election after
another and end up, in one way or another and in the best of all
possible outcomes, as (de facto if not de jure) president-for-life? Let me ask everybody a simply question: Who is the truly terrifying fanatic, here?

3) Here comes the kicker: the so-called "Birther" charge (whether brought by a Democrat or a Republican) was never a charge leveled primarily at a man called Barack Obama or, for that matter, against a member of a minority or a person of a particular race.

It was a charge against the media.

Indeed, as in 2) above, the "birther" charge was, and is, an entirely justifiable charge against the mainstream media. It was never about birth certificates per se. It was about the double standards that the MSM demonstrate again and again, first, between a Republican and a Democrat, and, second, between the other members of the Donkey Party and the media's preferred (i.e., its "dream") candidate.(See Instapunditfor a myriad of examples of why Glenn Reynolds refers to reporters and journalists as Democrats with bylines; or, as I call them, the fellow travelers in the (self-serving) drama queen viewof America and the world.)Recall Hillary Clinton referring to the SNL sketch journalists asking "Barack" if he is comfortable and needs another pillow. Here was a candidate (whatever the color of his skin) with, again, a foreign father and with long years of his childhood spent abroad (oh, and by the way, running a campaign extolling transparency): why not have a reporter or two (briefly) ask this person to (quickly) prove his credentials for the Oval Office (once and for all) — y'know, in the process of challenging politicians on their merits)?

4) The fact that the "Birther" issue was an (entirely justifiable) attack (by a Democrat or a Republican) on the mainstream media offering undeniable proof of its double standards is the very reason that it was—deliberately—turned into a scandal of humongous proportions depicting unspeakable hatred spewed by vicious packs of deranged, loony, and fanatic Neanderthals.

It
was not by accident that the title of my "lengthy, in-depth, and
dispassionate examination of the facts, of the nutjobs, and of Obama's
youth" was The JournoList Issue No One Is Bringing Up. The reason I keep referring to the "alleged" and to the "so-called" "Birther" issue in quotation marks is that it is an entirely fabricated story (or narrative, to use the MSM's preferred expression), by members of the mainstream media itself, with an entirely fabricated cast of nasty and dangerous villains, consisting of mobs of zealous trouble-makers and despicable enemies of the people.

The ensuing pearl-clutching "omigod-don't-tell-us-that-you-are-one-of-those-racist-clods?!" attitude was, and is, in no way a defense of Obama or the occupant of the white House; it was, and is, a defense of the mainstream media.

It was and is certainly not a gallant and high-principled attack on hate and bigotry, in defense of a minority member sitting in the White House.

It was and is a shameful, a disgusting, and an un-American attempt to shut down debate by shaming anyone wishing to take a deeper look into the biggest single piece of evidence exposing its (bogus) credentials of neutrality and impartiality.